You are here

LETTERS: Supreme Court foists ObamaCare on us

LETTERS: Supreme Court foists ObamaCare on us

FROM OUR READERS

To the editor:

Republicans, many columnists and talk-show hosts speak loudly against ObamaCare. Yet no one who dislikes the law seems to be able to undo it. People talk of President Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the bad guys responsible for this unhealthy law, but nobody seems to remember that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who ultimately could have crushed ObamaCare with his key vote in the Supreme Court.

Instead, with his deciding power, he put a stamp of approval on this chaotic law despite his awareness of its flaws. Without pointing out specific flaws to be corrected, he pointed to Congress to fix them.

But Congress — without any sane substitute plan of its own and while blabbering like the ObamaCare critics and supporters alike — has done nothing to fix anything. Defunding is not fixing. Chaotic and unfixed, ObamaCare will stay and become a nightmare for millions.

NICHOLAS ROSAL

HENDERSON

Sun’s one-sided story

To the editor:

I read with much amusement the opinions of Michael Stilley, Jerry Mosier and Elizabeth Poole, regarding the impending dissolution of the Las Vegas Sun (Wednesday letters). I’d like to direct their reading to the two articles in Wednesday’s publications regarding the court action.

The Review-Journal’s article was correctly headlined: “U.S. judge retains pact between R-J, Sun temporarily” while the Sun headlined: “Judge sides with Sun in granting order.” In reading the Review-Journal report, Judge Mahan questioned whether Sun owner Brian Greenspun’s siblings are “indispensable parties” and should be sued by their brother (which seems to be the real heart of this issue), since they were in the majority of a 3 -1 vote to dissolve the arrangement. Mr. Greenspun was the sole dissenter.

Yet in the Sun’s version, the big, bad Review-Journal was the perpetrator, trying to put them out of business, and Mr. Greenspun’s siblings were only briefly mentioned in an 18-paragraph report that was almost totally a discourse against the Review-Journal. It seems as if Mr. Greenspun has a problem with family, not the Review-Journal.

This type of skewed news reporting has been the basic slant of Mr. Greenspun’s editorial policies while guiding the Sun. Every day, the red banner atop the first page of the Sun proclaims: “2009 Pulitzer Prize Winner for Public Service,” yet I’d like to know what the Sun has done for Southern Nevada in the past five years, besides reprint New York Times or Washington Post articles, or ultra-liberal administration propaganda outlets.

The only positive published piece in the Sun is the crossword puzzle. But I did laugh out loud at Ms. Poole’s comment that the only source of major TV news in her house was PBS. Really? You might as well turn on MSNBC or CNN, because all you’re going to get is another taste of left-leaning news. Is it any wonder why she’s against the demise of the Sun?

GEORGE PUCINE

LAS VEGAS

Chalk vandals

To the editor:

I heard that the chalk protesters are now being referred to as street artists (“Sidewalk graffiti case erased,” Thursday Review-Journal). I have a better term: vandals. Why do politicians keep giving these vandals, cloaked in the disguise of protesters, the protection of First Amendment status? I thought “protesting” was supposed to be more along the lines of walking on the sidewalk in an orderly fashion with picket signs, a practice that doesn’t hurt anyone, nor make a mess for taxpayers’ dollars to clean up.

Nowadays the Culinary union gets away with choking off traffic in downtown Las Vegas, all in pursuit of its monetary interests. The Occupy Wall Street movement was so chaotic that even the mayor of liberal Oakland, Calif., said enough was enough. The street artists couldn’t afford a bucket and mop to clean up after themselves?

The First Amendment is a wonderful document, but people are bastardizing it by twisting it to justify nefarious means. Sadly, District Attorney Steve Wolfson bought into that pablum.

Comment section guidelines

The below comment section contains thoughts and opinions from users that in no way represent the views of the Las Vegas Review-Journal or GateHouse Media. This public platform is intended to provide a forum for users of reviewjournal.com to share ideas, express thoughtful opinions and carry the conversation beyond the article. Users must follow the guidelines under our Commenting Policy and are encouraged to use the moderation tools to help maintain civility and keep discussions on topic.